DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION OF A CLASSROOM OBSERVATION INSTRUMENT FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF CO-TEACHING PRACTICES
by Amy Jill Rogers Liberty University
A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Degree
Doctor of Education
Liberty University April 14, 2016
DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION OF A CLASSROOM OBSERVATION INSTRUMENT FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF CO-TEACHING PRACTICES
by Amy Jill Rogers
A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Degree
Doctor of Education
Liberty University, Lynchburg, VA April 14, 2016
APPROVED BY: Lucinda S. Spaulding, Ph.D., Committee Chair Amanda J. Rockinson-Szapkiw, Ed.D., Committee Member
Jared Bigham, Ed.D., Committee Member Scott Watson, Ph.D., Associate Dean, Advanced Programs
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to develop and field test the Co-Teaching Observation Instrument (CTOI) to determine its validity and reliability as an instrument for the observation of general and special education teacher practices in co-taught classrooms across kindergarten through twelfth grade levels. Face and content validity were established through a review by 10 experts in the field of special education. The experts were asked to pilot the instrument and then rate the composite instrument on a three point Likert-type scale in terms of whether it measures co-teaching practices including the dimensions of collaboration/teacher parity, teacher to student interaction, instructional roles, instructional strategies, individualized instruction, and classroom management. The experts were also asked to rate each of the 48 items as essential, useful but not essential, or not necessary. Following the expert review, five items were removed. Field testing was completed with the observation of 160 pairs of co-teachers (N = 320) in classrooms across the state of Georgia. A principle component analysis (PCA), which resulted in the removal of 8 additional items and a four factor solution, established construct validity. Cronbach’s alpha and the Spearman-Brown coefficient were calculated to establish reliability and internal consistency. It was concluded that the Co-Teaching Observation Instrument (CTOI) is a valid and reliable measure of effective co-teaching practices. This instrument yielded 35 interpretable items loading onto four components/subscales: (a) classroom interaction, (b) classroom management, (c) instructional strategies, and (d) instructional roles.
Key words: classroom observations, collaboration, co-teaching, inclusion, , teacher attitudes, teacher perception
© Copyright 2016 Amy Jill Rogers All Rights Reserved
Dedication
I would like to dedicate this dissertation to my children, Owen and Bree. You are my greatest gifts. You gave me the motivation to keep going, and you continue to bring joy to every second of every day. My most sincere prayer is for both of you to grow into strong Christians and keep a close walk with God. My heart’s desire is to be exactly what God wants me to be as your mother, and please always know that this journey was about you every step of the way. I love you both more than you can imagine.
Acknowledgments
There have been many individuals who have helped me throughout this process. I would like to thank God for allowing me the opportunity to embark on and see the completion of this journey. It has truly been a gift. Although some days were not easy, He has given me the strength to see it through and allowed me to grow through this process. My family has been a source of strength as well. My husband, Michael, has always been supportive of me regardless of the time that I had to put into the work. He is my rock, and I probably don’t tell him that enough. My children, Owen and Bree, gave me joy and love that often turned my days around. It might have been from a smile or just their presence, but when the burden would be overwhelming, they were always my ray of light. My mom, as always, was my biggest cheerleader, and I couldn’t have done this without her belief in me. My dad was patient and understanding with me as I had so many obligations and deadlines that often had to come before other things. I would like to thank Dr. Bigham for his insight and guidance in this process. I would also like to thank Dr. Spaulding and Dr. Szapkiw not only for their professional support but also for their personal interest and the prayers sent up for me during this process. The time that I spent with them on campus shaped the rest of this process.
Table of Contents
List of Figures ... 13
List of Abbreviations ... 14
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ... 16
Introduction ... 16
Background ... 17
Problem Statement ... 24
Purpose Statement ... 24
Significance of the Study ... 25
Research Questions ... 26 Hypotheses ... 27 Identification of Items ... 28 Definitions ... 29 Assumptions ... 32 Research Summary ... 32
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ... 35
Introduction ... 35
Background ... 35
Previous Studies Regarding Teacher Perception ... 39
Demographics ... 39
Experience with Disabilities ... 40
The Impact of Teacher Education Programs ... 41
Positive Outcomes in Co-Taught Classrooms ... 42
Co-Teaching Models ... 43
Teacher Classroom Practice as a Component of Perception ... 44
The Need for a Validated Instrument for Co-Teaching Observation ... 45
Teacher Collaboration and Parity ... 47
Teacher-to-Student Interaction ... 49 Instructional Roles... 50 Instructional Strategies ... 51 Individualized Instruction ... 54 Classroom Management ... 56 Theoretical Framework ... 59 Summary ... 61
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY ... 63
Introduction ... 63
Design... 63
Phase 1: Instrument Development ... 63
Phase 2: Expert Review-Face and Content Validity ... 64
Phase 3: Field Testing, Construct Validity, and Reliability ... 65
Questions and Hypotheses ... 65
Participants ... 67
Phase 2: Expert Review - Face and Content Validity ... 68
Phase 3: Field Testing, Construct Validity, and Reliability ... 71
Phase 2: Expert Review- Face and Content Validity ... 76
Phase 3: Field Testing, Construct Validity, and Reliability ... 76
Procedures ... 77
Phase 2: Expert Review-Face and Content Validity ... 77
Phase 3: Field Testing, Construct Validity, and Reliability ... 78
Instrumentation and Data Analysis ... 79
Phase 1: Instrument Development ... 79
Phase 2: Expert Review of Face and Content Validity ... 94
Phase 3: Field Testing, Construct Validity, and Reliability ... 97
Summary ... 100
CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS ... 101
Introduction ... 101
Research Questions ... 101
Hypotheses ... 102
Null Hypothesis One and Two: Face and Content Validity ... 103
Null Hypotheses Three and Four: Construct Validity and Reliability ... 107
Descriptive Statistics ... 108
Null Hypothesis Three ... 111
Assessment of Suitability Data ... 112
Null Hypothesis Four... 126
Summary ... 127
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS ... 129
Discussion ... 129
Hypothesis One and Hypothesis Two ... 130
Hypothesis Three ... 132
Hypothesis Four ... 134
Implications ... 135
Limitations ... 141
Recommendations for Future Research ... 142
Conclusions ... 143 References ... 145 Appendix A ... 165 Appendix B ... 166 Appendix C ... 168 Appendix D ... 169 Appendix E ... 170 Appendix F ... 171 Appendix G ... 173 Appendix H ... 184 Appendix I ... 187 Appendix J... 192 Appendix K ... 193 Appendix L ... 194 Appendix M... 200 Appendix N ... 228
Appendix O ... 235 Appendix P ... 244
List of Tables
Table 1: Credentials of Expert Participants………70
Table 2: Observers Field Testing Demographics………73
Table 3: Observees Field Testing Demographics………75
Table 4: Item Construction………..81
Table 5: Items from Expert Review Document………...93
Table 6: Items Receiving Multiple Comments from Experts ……….103
Table 7: Items Removed from Instrument following Expert Review………104
Table 8: Descriptive Statistics………106
Table 9: Response Percentages for Checklist Items………..108
Table 10: Literature Review for 4 Component Solution………113
Table 11: Component Correlation Matrix………..115
Table 12: Rotated Component Matrix………116
Table 13: Communalities………118
Table 14: Items Removed following Evaluation of Factor Loadings………121
List of Figures
List of Abbreviations Behavior Intervention Plan (BIP)
Blending Assessment with Instruction (BAIP)
Classroom Observations of Student-Teacher Interactions (COSTI) Co-Teaching Observation Instrument (CTOI)
Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)
Council of Administrators of Special Education (CASE) Council for Exceptional Children (CEC)
Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA) Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) Every Child Achieves Act (ECAA)
Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) Factor Analysis (FA)
Functional Behavior Assessment (FBA) Georgia Learning Resource System (GLRS)
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Individualized EducationProgram (IEP)
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO)
Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) Local educational agency (LEA) No Child Left Behind (NCLB)
Regional Education Services Agency (RESA) Regular Education Initiative (REI)
Social Cognitive Theory (SCT)
Teacher-Pupil Observation Tool (T-POT) Teacher-Student Relationship Inventory (TSRI) Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI)
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION Introduction
Special education law in the Unites States mandates that students with disabilities receive access to the general education curriculum and that this instruction be provided in the least restrictive environment (LRE) (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act [IDEA] of 2004, 2004). The LRE requires that students receive access to the general education curriculum and be educated with non disabled peers to the greatest extent possible (Crockett & Kauffman, 1998; Moores, 2011; Solis, Vaughn, Swanson, & Mcculley, 2012). This access to the general education curriculum is typically accomplished for students with disabilities utilizing either inclusion or co-taught classrooms. Inclusion is the term that describes the process of training students with and without disabilities in the same classroom setting, while co-teaching describes this inclusion setting which is led by both a general education and a special education teacher (Silverman, Hong, & Trepanier-Street, 2010). Due to the requirements set forth by IDEA, inclusion and specifically co-teaching has become a increasingly utilized model in the education of students with disabilities in recent years (de Boer, Pijl, & Minnaert, 2011).
Those employed in the field of education have been impacted by this movement in both positive and negative manners. One result has been the conversations and research surrounding the barriers to inclusion models such as co-teaching as well as the characteristics and practices that contribute to successful co-taught classrooms (Haug, 2010; Leatherman, 2007; Pearce, Gray, & Campbell-Evans, 2009). There is need for further research in this area as well as more
comprehensive means to assess the implementation of practice in the classroom. Behavior influences a great many other classroom practices, which increases the need to measure and understand this phenomenon. It is necessary to understand the actions of teachers as they will
inevitably have an impact on the behaviors and achievement of students, because strategy has much more impact than location of instruction (Madden & Slavin, 1983). Student behavior will in turn influence the climate of the classroom in either a positive or negative way, and the cycle will continue.
The purpose of this study was to develop and validate an observation instrument to measure general education and special education teacher practices in co-taught environments across kindergarten through 12th grade levels. In this chapter, the background of this study is discussed and the problem and purpose of the proposed research established. The significance of the study and research questions are also discussed.
Background
Hospitals and institutions for individuals with disabilities were established as early as the 12th century (Carey, 2009; Richards, 2004; Winzer, 1998). Prior to and during the 1800s, societal views of individuals with disabilities were generally characterized as embarrassment and
avoidance (Winzer, 1993). Individuals with disabilities were viewed as less than human, excluded from many situations, abandoned, and even put to death (Crissey, 1975; Dybwad, 1990; Heller, 1979; Winzer, 1993). It was believed that children with any type of deformity were an indication of the sins of the parents and something to be hidden away. During the French Enlightenment, philosophical questions arose regarding the education of individuals with sensory impairments. Research followed on education for the deaf and the blind as well as those with severe intellectual disabilities, which bridged the gap between philosophy and the educational and medical communities (Crissey, 1975; French, 2006; Itard, 1962; Winzer, 1998). The work begun was carried on in the United States by people like Dorothea Lynde Dix, who challenged the legislation in this area, and educators such as Thomas Gallaudet and Samuel Gridley Howe,
who presented strategies for the education of individuals with disabilities (Carey, 2009; Cerney, 2007; Trent, 1994).
Compulsory attendance laws were enacted in the United States as early as 1840, but these laws did not support the inclusion of students with disabilities in the school system. In Watson v. City of Cambridge 1893, the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that students could be expelled due to being “weak in mind, troublesome to other children, and unable to take ordinary, decent, physical care of himself” (Yell, Rogers, & Lodge Rodgers, 1998, p. 219). In Ohio, the Cuyahoga County Court of Appeals ruled in 1934 that the state department of education could choose to exclude certain students from compulsory attendance laws (Yell et al., 1998).
The impact of several historical events provoked a closer look at the societal views regarding educating individuals with disabilities in the United States. The Civil Rights movement was a major influence in this process. In Brown v. Board of Education 1954, a precedent was set. The argument was raised that all typical students are provided an education but not all students with disabilities. This type of unequal treatment based on an individual’s unalterable characteristics was deemed unacceptable. The Expansion of Teaching in the Education of Mentally Retarded Children Act of 1958 provided more funds for the training of educators in the field of education. The National Defense Education Act of 1960 allocated more federal funds for the education of public school students. In 1965, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) set aside more federal funds for certain categories, and students with disabilities were among these. Title VI added funding for additional programs in 1966. In 1973, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act addressed the civil rights of the handicapped population (Yell et al., 1998).
All of these legislative occurrences culminated in the passage of PL 94-142 Education for all Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA) of 1975. This act provided federal monies to states for help in educating students with disabilities. The Bureau of Education for the Handicapped approved the plans submitted by each state for the education of these students. Once the plans were accepted, the states agreed to provide the services, and the funds were provided by the federal government. The EAHCA mandated non-discriminatory testing, evaluation, and placement procedures; education in the least restrictive environment (LRE); procedural due process; and a free and appropriate public education. An Individualized Education Program (IEP) was required for all students with disabilities (Solis et al., 2012; Yell et al., 1998).
In 1990, the EAHCA was reauthorized and renamed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The changes included the use of language to first person and the addition of Autism and Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) as accepted service categories. A plan for transition also became a requirement in IEPs by age 16. IDEA was amended in 1997 to include students with disabilities in the administration of state and district assessments. The goals and objectives found in the IEP were required to be measurable and progress was to be reported. Students exhibiting behavior issues were required to have a Behavior Intervention Plan (BIP) written from the results of a Functional Behavior Assessment (FBA). These necessary changes were mandated by this 1997 amendment (Solis et al., 2012; Yell et al., 1998).
The concept of LRE also received a great deal of attention in the 1997 reauthorization of IDEA. The terminology “was derived from the concept of least restrictive alternative which has its legal basis in the United States Constitution and serves to balance individual and state interests” (Crockett & Kauffman, 1998, p. 75). The requirement is that students be educated in the general education setting with nondisabled peers to the maximum extent possible (Crockett
& Kauffman, 1998; Moores, 2011; Solis et al., 2012). The ruling of the courts on this issue is difficult to predict. The needs of each individual student must be considered in light of the benefits of all settings. School systems are not required to place the student in the general education setting prior to suggesting another placement option. The district is required to offer a full continuum of services from self-contained and pullout options to a full inclusion model. There must also be policies in place to meet the needs of students who need more restrictive placements such as institutionalization or hospitalization. The needs of nondisabled students may also be taken into account in determining placement. Data must be considered in order for
student needs and outcomes to be assessed and to determine services needed (Crockett & Kauffman, 1998). The reauthorization of IDEA in 2004 addressed the need for research based interventions to be utilized with students with disabilities (Solis et al., 2012).
There has long been the debate over whether students achieve more promising academic outcomes in co-taught settings when compared to students in self contained or special education settings. A very small number of studies indicate a preference for the special education
environment, and most indicate this benefit for those students possessing an IQ of less than 70 (Canadian Council on Learning [CCL], 2009; Madden & Slavin, 1983). One study suggested that more positive academic outcomes are experienced in the general education classroom, but most of these outcomes were not significant (CCL, 2009).
It is also recognized that there are many other factors contributing to the academic results in addition to placement. One of the most important factors to consider is quality of instruction (CCL, 2009). This conclusion is supported and evidence is provided that students perform better in heterogeneous settings, as Calhoun and Elliott (1977) demonstrated in their longitudinal study of 100 students. In a more recent study, Tremblay (2013) found that, following a study of
co-taught and special education classes (N = 353), co-teaching had a positive impact on reading and writing as well as attendance.
There is no consensus or significant results from research studies regarding co-teaching versus self contained education. Students with disabilities in the general education setting performed better on some measures than those being served in the special education classroom, and other measures were comparable (Rea, McLaughlin, & Walther-Thomas, 2002). There is support to suggest that in general education settings, where individualized instruction was utilized for students with disabilities, there was a preference over special education classrooms using the same strategies (Madden & Slavin, 1983; Rea et al., 2002). Where this individualized instruction was not used, there were very few differences noted (Madden & Slavin, 1983). It was stated that this type of instruction is more easily implemented in general education classrooms where there are few students receiving special education services (CCL, 2009).
In order to be successful, students with disabilities must be afforded more support than is readily accessible in the general education setting, and instruction must be tailored to their individual needs (IDEA of 2004, 2004). According to a correlational study conducted by Rea et al. (2002) on students with learning disabilities (N = 58), there were no more discipline referrals on students with disabilities when placed in the general education setting, and these co-taught students attended school more consistently than their counterparts in self-contained classrooms. Placement in the co-taught setting does not appear to have negative consequences, and in some instances, there may be positive aspects to behavior (Rea et al., 2002; Solis et al., 2012). The strategies that have been found effective for students with disabilities are at minimum as
beneficial and sometimes more beneficial for typical age peers, as well (CCL, 2009; Madden & Slavin, 1983).
Many studies have been conducted examining the role of educators’ perceptions on the co-teaching process (Hwang & Evans, 2011; Parua, 2010; Rakap & Kaczmarek, 2010). These results indicate a variety of attitudes stemming from diverse variables. Some results indicate overall positive attitudes toward inclusion (Gal, Schreur, & Engel-Yeger, 2010; Horne & Timmons, 2009). However, there are multiple variables noted that raise concerns and possibly impact the resulting attitudes toward this model of instruction. These variables include lack of administrative support and resources, lack of appropriate training, lack of participation in the decision making process, disruptive behaviors, and lack of planning time (Brackenreed, 2008; Hwang & Evans, 2011; Ocloo & Subbey, 2008). Still, other studies yielded results that indicate a more neutral stance from educators or inconsistencies from one measurement instrument to another (Hwang & Evans, 2011; Sari, Celikoz, & Secer, 2009). There are inconsistent findings regarding the impact of gender, teaching experience, and level of education on these perceptions as well (de Boer et al., 2011; Parua, 2010; Rakap & Kaczmarek, 2010). The literature supports the fact that there has been no significant change in these perceptions over time (Avramidis & Norwich, 2002; Buell, Hallam, Gamel-McCormick, & Scheer, 1999; de Boer et al., 2011; Boyd, 2013; Stefanidis & Strogilos, 2015).
In considering how perceptions affect the resulting practices of educators in co-taught classrooms, it is important to consider what makes up attitude. Eagly and Chaiken (1993) proposed in the three-component theory that attitude is comprised of cognitive, affective, and behavioral components. This concept is further supported by Fishbein and Ajzen’s (2009) theory of planned behavior, which states behaviors can be explained and predicted. The variables that predict the resulting actions are behavioral control, subjective norms, and intentions (Campbell, 2010; Kuyini & Desai, 2007; Mahat, 2008). Both of the referenced theories draw conclusions
from Bandura’s (1997) social cognitive theory. Bandura (1997) stated, “It is difficult to guide actions that are only partially observable or to make corrective adjustments in behavior that is poorly monitored” (p. 373). This premise further supports the need for behavioral data in order to truly understand or change classroom behavior.
With the theory of planned behavior (Fishbein & Ajzen, 2009), three-component theory (Eagly & Chaiken,1993) and social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1997) in mind, a recurrent limitation and gap in the research is evident. These theories are discussed in more detail in Chapter Two. While there are many studies assessing the perceptions of educators regarding co-teaching in the cognitive (Brady & Woolfson, 2008; de Boer et al., 2011; Parua, 2010) and affective realms (Avramidis & Norwich, 2002; Korkmaz, 2011; Ocloo & Subbey, 2008), there are no studies with observational data regarding the resulting classroom practices (Brackenreed, 2008; Horne & Timmons, 2009; Ocloo & Subbey, 2008). There is a stated concern that there is no guarantee that practices will follow perceptions resulting in the conclusion that observation may be a more reliable tool than self-report (de Boer et al., 2011; McCray & McHatton, 2011; Rakap & Kaczmarek, 2010). A review of existing research revealed that there is no validated instrument for the observation of co-teachers in existence, which means that a clear picture of attitude cannot be obtained without considering the behavioral component. It is possible to measure teacher perceptions and thoughts regarding the co-teaching model with available validated instruments; however, without the existence of a reliable observational tool for co-teachers’ classroom practices, it is impossible to address all pertinent components. It is necessary to understand how the reported thoughts and feelings regarding co-teaching impact classroom practices. The labeling of a classroom as a co-taught setting does not necessarily mean best practices are being implemented. A measurement tool for collecting data on teacher practices in
co-taught classrooms could have far reaching implications for administrators, educators, and researchers who wish to improve the educational outcomes for children with and without disabilities in co-taught environments.
Problem Statement
Research indicates that students with special needs perform better in the co-taught setting than in the special education setting when individualized instruction is utilized (CCL, 2009; Rea et al., 2002; Solis et al., 2012). Favorable outcomes in co-taught settings are still marginal or non-significant in most cases, which might indicate that individualized instruction is not actually being implemented. It is important to assess whether the individualized instruction is actually being employed in order to truly evaluate the placement (CCL, 2009; Madden & Slavin, 1983). While there is much quantitative and qualitative research with a focus on how teachers perceive the effectiveness of co-teaching (Avramidis & Norwich, 2002; de Boer et al., 2011), there are no validated instruments for observing teacher practices (Brackenreed, 2008; Horne & Timmons, 2009; Ocloo & Subbey, 2008). While social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1997) indicates there is a link between attitude and behavior, self-report surveys cannot stand alone without observing actual practices (McCray & McHatton, 2011; Rakap & Kaczmarek, 2010). There must first be a instrument that measures those practices that are observable in the classroom setting (de Boer et al., 2011). As there is no such validated observation instrument, this study sought to develop a reliable, validated instrument to provide this behavioral data.
Purpose Statement
The purpose of this study was to develop and validate an observation instrument that measures both general education and special education teacher practices in co-taught
through three distinct phases that included instrument development, expert review, and field testing. A comprehensive review of the literature supports the theory of planned behavior (Fishbein & Ajzen, 2009) and the psychology of attitudes (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993) with a need for the instruments to measure the behavior component of attitudes related to co-teaching.
Significance of the Study
This study makes an important contribution to the field of education by developing an instrument that measures the observable practices of general and special educators in co-taught K–12 settings. Co-teaching has been heralded as an effective mechanism utilized to educate all learners in one environment provided that effective instructional strategies are consistently implemented (CCL, 2009; Rea et al., 2002; Solis et al., 2012), but more information is needed. Previous studies indicated that teacher perceptions regarding co-teaching practices range from negative to positive with some studies even citing neutrality. These findings indicate that there has been little consensus in this area (de Boer et al., 2011; Horne & Timmons, 2009; Sari et al., 2009). There is a large variance in findings, and it is difficult to give credence to the relationship between perception and practice without a validated measurement instrument for co-teaching practices. This research contributes to this gap in the research by providing this necessary instrument. In future research, the Co-Teaching Observation Instrument (CTOI) could assist in illustrating the resulting triangulation of cognitive, affective, and behavioral components of attitudes in relation to co-teaching practices (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993; Hwang & Evans, 2011; Rakap & Kaczmarek, 2010).
There have been many practices recognized in the literature that contribute to the successful implementation of co-teaching strategies. These include collaboration skills, teacher parity, shared responsibility, and accommodations and active learning strategies for students
(Patterson, Syyerud, & Seabrooks-Blackmore, 2008; Rix, Hall, Nind, Sheehy, & Wearmouth, 2009; Thousand, Rosenberg, Bishop, & Villa, 1997). Developing an instrument for classroom observation allows the evaluation of the implementation of these practices, and the instrument can be utilized to develop more effective co-teaching programs across all grade levels. Ongoing evaluation would help develop more classroom environments that epitomize best practices culminating in better results for students.
There is also the opportunity for further theoretical implications as a result of this study, including support for the tenant of social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1997) and the role that behavior plays in social environments. Future research using this instrument will assist in a more cohesive view of the interaction between attitudes and resulting practices.
Research Questions The research questions for this study were:
RQ1: Does the Co-Teaching Observation Instrument (CTOI) have face validity for measuring co-teaching practices including teacher collaboration/parity, student teacher
interaction, instructional roles, instructional strategies, individualized instruction, and classroom management?
RQ2: Does the Co-Teaching Observation Instrument (CTOI) have content validity for measuring co-teaching practices including teacher collaboration/parity, student teacher
interaction, instructional roles, instructional strategies, individualized instruction, and classroom management?
RQ3: What is the underlying factor structure of the Co-Teaching Observation Instrument (CTOI) used in this study?
RQ4: Does the Co-Teaching Observation Instrument (CTOI) show internal consistency for the composite scale and its subscales?
Hypotheses The following were the research hypotheses:
H11: The Co-Teaching Observation Instrument (CTOI) has face validity for measuring
co-teaching practices including teacher collaboration/parity, student teacher interaction, instructional roles, instructional strategies, individualized instruction, and classroom management.
H12: The Co-Teaching Observation Instrument (CTOI) has content validity for
measuring co-teaching practices including teacher collaboration/parity, student teacher
interaction, instructional roles, instructional strategies, individualized instruction, and classroom management.
H13: The underlying factor structure of the Co-Teaching Observation Instrument (CTOI)
used in this study will be co-teaching practices including teacher collaboration/parity, student teacher interaction, instructional roles, instructional strategies, individualized instruction, and classroom management.
H14: The Co-Teaching Observation Instrument (CTOI) shows internal consistency for the
composite scale and its subscales.
Alternatively, the following were the null hypotheses:
H01: The Co-Teaching Observation Instrument (CTOI) does not have face validity for
measuring co-teaching practices including teacher collaboration/parity, student teacher
interaction, instructional roles, instructional strategies, individualized instruction, and classroom management.
H02: The Co-Teaching Observation Instrument (CTOI) does not have content validity for
measuring co-teaching practices including teacher collaboration/parity, student teacher
interaction, instructional roles, instructional strategies, individualized instruction, and classroom management.
H03: The underlying factor structure of the Co-Teaching Observation Instrument (CTOI)
used in this study will not be co-teaching practices including teacher collaboration/parity, student teacher interaction, instructional roles, instructional strategies, individualized instruction, and classroom management.
H04: The Co-Teaching Observation Instrument (CTOI) does not show internal
consistency for the composite scale and its subscales.
Identification of Items
Drawing from social cognitive theory (SCT) (Bandura, 1969, 1997), the constructs necessary to understand behavior have been identified through prior research. SCT is the
theoretical basis for research regarding the practice of effective co-teaching including each of the six dimensions of teacher practices identified during review of the literature for intitial
instrument development in this study. SCT offers support for the effective development of instructional roles, strategies, individualized instruction, classroom management, collaboration, and interaction (Abulibdeh & Hassan, 2011; Anderson, Walker, & Ralph, 2009; Dibapile, 2012; Fok-Han, Martin, & Batty, 2009; Greener, 2009; Woodcock & Vialle, 2010). These dimensions were utilized in the development of the CTOI.
Classroom management strategies are those practices utilized in order to control inappropriate behaviors, promote positive behaviors, and preserve the learning environment.
This can be evidenced by a majority of students on task and completing assignments (Mastropieri et al., 2005).
Individualized instruction is the act of delivering instruction in order to meet the needs of the learner as outlined by their IEP (Konrad, Joseph, & Itoi, 2011).
Instructional roles are the duties performed during instruction by both educators in the classroom. The students should view both instructors as teachers and see them assume
responsibility for the classroom (Linz, Heater, & Howard, 2008).
Instructional strategies are defined as the practices implemented in the classroom in order to deliver instruction effectively to all learners including necessary accommodations (King-Sears, 1997; Muscott, 1995; Sanacore, 1996).
Student to teacher interaction is defined as both verbal and non verbal communication in the classroom that contributes to student success (Ripski, LoCasale-Crouch, & Decker, 2011).
Teacher collaboration is effective planning to utilize the expertise from the general and special education teacher. Collaboration leads to greater trust and shared responsibility in the classroom (Carter, Prater, Jackson, & Marchant, 2009; Linz et al., 2008; Silverman et al., 2010).
Definitions
As with all subjects of study, there is vocabulary specific to the realm of education and specifically special education and the practices therein. In order to truly delve into the subject of co-taught classrooms, there are several terms that require understanding.
1. Accommodations - A change in delivery or the materials used but not a change in curriculum content (McLaughlin, 2012; Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1995).
2. Attitudes - The feelings that an individual exhibits toward something or someone that is comprised of cognitive, affective, and behavioral components (de Boer et al., 2011).
3. Behaviors - The overt actions that are observable in a situation (Bandura, 1997). 4, Classroom management - While there are several components working together in classroom management, the majority of literature focuses on control and student behavior in the instructional setting resulting from the expectations and strategies used by the teacher (Garrahy, Cothran, & Kulinna, 2005).
5. Co-teaching - A strategy based on collaboration and implemented for the service of special education students in a general education setting in which the class is conducted by both a general education teacher and a special education teacher (Nichols, Dowdy, & Nichols, 2010). 6. Construct validity - Whether or not an instrument measures what it claims to measure based on proven relationships between the variables determined during data analysis (Salkind, 2000).
7. Content validity - Refers to whether the items in an instrument actually measure what they are stated to measure (Delgado-Rico, Carretero-Dios, & Ruch, 2012).
8. Face validity - How well an instrumentappears to measure what it is intended to measure or its face value (Kucuk & Walters, 2009).
9. Inclusion - This is the process of training students with and without disabilities in the same classroom setting (Silverman et al., 2010).
10. Individualized Education Program (IEP) - An educational plan determined by a committee consisting of a special education teacher, general education teacher, a representative of the local educational agency (LEA), the parent, the student, and any other providers or individuals with pertinent information pertaining to the student in order to support a student’s academic progress and set forth goals that will be monitored to assist in the achievement of state grade-level academic standards (Ahearn, 2010).
11. Instructional roles - Refers to the various duties and responsibilities taken on in the classroom during instruction (Bouck, 2007; Friend, Cook, Hurley-Chamberlain, & Shamberger, 2010).
12. Instructional strategies - Refers to the delivery of materials while differentiating instruction (Rea & Connell, 2005).
13. Least restrictive environment (LRE) - The requirement is that students be educated in the general education setting with non disabled peers to the maximum extent possible (Crockett & Kauffman, 1998; Moores, 2011; Solis et al., 2012).
14. Modifications - An intervention offered in an IEP that requires a change in content or curriculum (McLaughlin, 2012; Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1995).
15. Perceptions - The beliefs and expectations held by an individual regarding a certain situation (Fishbein & Azjen, 2009).
16. Practices - The feature of relationship that binds activities and behaviors together in observable ways (Gherardi, 2001).
17. Student-to-teacher interaction - Style and quality of communication between teachers and students (Smolkowski & Gunn, 2012).
18. Teacher collaboration - The shared interactions between professionals in a variety of activities (Friend et al., 2010).
19. Theory of Attitude/The Three Component Theory - Eagly and Chaiken (1993) stated that attitudes are comprised of cognitive, affective, and behavioral components.
20. Theory of Planned Behavior - A theory that states normative beliefs, perceived behavioral control, and intention directly affect behavior. There is also an influence by prior knowledge or experience (Fishbein & Azjen, 2009).
Assumptions
The first assumption was that the experts, general education, and special education teachers participating in the study were representative of the population of the United States. I attempted to ensure this by sending out the requests to participate to the appropriate agencies and
individuals. Following the completion of the study, demographics were used to demonstrate that the sample was representative of the population with whom the instrument will be used. There was the assumption that individuals reported their credentials honestly, which resulted in the choosing of the most appropriate applicants.
Research Summary
This research design was instrument development, and the purpose of this study was to develop and validate an observation instrument that measures both general education and special education teacher practices in co-taught environments across kindergarten through twelfth grade levels. A great deal of research evaluated teachers’ perceptions of the effectiveness of
co-teaching in the last several years (Avramidis & Norwich, 2002; de Boer et al., 2011); however, prior to this study there were no validated instruments for observing teacher practices
(Brackenreed, 2008; Horne & Timmons, 2009; Ocloo & Subbey, 2008). This study makes an important contribution to the field of education by developing an instrument that measures the observable practices of both general and special educators in co-taught settings.
This initial instrument was developed through three distinct phases. Phase 1 was instrument development and included a review of the empirical and theoretical literature and review of similar observational scales. In Phase 2 and Phase 3, data was anlayzed using multiple analyses in order to address face and content validity via expert review, construct validity via principal component analysis (PCA), and internal consistency and reliability via Crohnbach’s
alpha and the Spearman-Brown coefficient. This design was appropriate as an instrument was developed for the observation of co-taught classrooms and needed to determine appropriate components and which items should be retained in order to have a valid and reliable instrument. The resulting instrument was a combination of a five-point Likert-type scale and checklist items that a non-participant observer completes during the classroom observation of pairs of
co-teachers. The literature review offered support for the appropriateness of the components chosen and assisted in determining the definition of each.
In Phase 2, the face and content validity of the instrument were investigated using expert review. Experts with specific qualifications in the field were utilized in order to evaluate the validity of the instrument to measure what it intends to measure, and changes were made
following their review as deemed appropriate. In Phase 3, the revised instrument was field tested in school systems across the state of Georgia to further determine validity and reliability. A principal component analysis (PCA) was completed in order to reduce the number of variables into the appropriate components for measurement of co-teaching practices. Based on the components that were indicated by the intitial evaluation of the eigenvalues, scree plot, parallel analysis, and a conceptual understanding of the literature, a determination was made regarding which items loaded onto these components and should be retained for inclusion in the final instrument. PCA was the most appropriate analysis, as it was an exploratory approach to determine appropriate components and allowed all variance to be analyzed between the items. This analysis allowed a final decision on the number of appropriate items and allowed for determination of the construct validity of the instrument. Cronbach’s alpha and Spearman Brown coefficient were generated in order to determine internal consistency and reliability of both the instrument and the subscales. The following chapters illustrate the manner in which the
review of the literature provided the direction for this study and how this led to the resulting methods, outcomes, and suggestions for future research.
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Introduction
The purpose of this study was to develop and validate an observation instrument that measures both general education and special education teacher co-teaching practices in co-taught environments across kindergarten through 12th grade levels. While there is much quantitative and qualitative research with a focus on how teachers perceive the effectiveness of co-teaching (Avramidis & Norwich, 2002; de Boer et al., 2011), there are no validated instruments for observing teacher practices (Brackenreed, 2008; Horne & Timmons, 2009; Ocloo & Subbey, 2008). This chapter provides a synthesis of the historical, empirical, and theoretical literature surrounding co-teaching. The literature review includes the background of co-taught classrooms, a review of co-teaching models, barriers to this approach, as well as the characteristics of
successful co-teachers. A discussion of the literature surrounding six identified dimensions of teacher parity/collaboration, teacher to student interaction, instructional roles, instructional strategies, individualized instruction, and classroom management are also included. The chapter concludes with the theories informing the study parameters and research hypotheses, including the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980) attitude theory (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993), and social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1997).
Background
Over the past decades the process of co-teaching, once referred to as cooperative teaching, has been considered one of education’s best practice models for educating students with disabilities in the general education classroom (Bouck, 2007; Friend et al., 2010; Murawski & Swanson, 2001). Despite this push toward co-taught classrooms, there is still much debate in the educational community regarding how to define or evaluate co-teaching practices (Gotshall
& Stefanou, 2011; Haug, 2010; Thorpe & Shafiul Azam, 2010). The Regular Education Initiative (REI) proposed in 1986 by Assistant Secretary of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Madeline Will, sought to give the local school control over the service delivery, increase
instructional time and classroom support, individualize instruction, align assessment to the curriculum, and promote cooperative learning in general education classrooms. Will voiced concerns over whether services were being delivered in the current system. The ideas of
accountability and expectations within pull out classrooms as well as stigma associated with this service were also called into question. This concept of REI was advocated as an alternative to the dual systems of special and general education. For the first time it was questioned whether a lack of success in the classroom could be a result of the environment rather than ability of the student (Kubicek, 1994).
The movement toward co-teaching as a model to implement in the general education classroom has long been a subject for debate. Full inclusionists are proponents of the general education environment for all children (Fuchs, 1998). Rationale for this mindset includes the belief that while any purely special education placements exist, teachers will put children in them simply to remove them from the classroom rather than to meet the needs of the student (Fuchs, 1998). The belief is also held that students must model the social behaviors of general education peers and must be in the general education classroom full-time in order to feel a part of the environment. The inclusionists, on the other hand, support the legally mandated continuum of services to address the individual needs of each student. Individuals in this school of thought feel that the general education classroom may not always be able to meet all the needs of each
ability to individualize instruction and have more time to remediate skills in a small group setting (Fuchs, 1998).
Inclusion is defined as “educational programming wherein students with disabilities learn with peers in general education classrooms” (Solis et al., 2012, p. 498). This process may be carried out with or without a special education teacher present in the classroom. The co-taught classroom includes instruction from both general and special education teachers; however, co-teaching is much more than the presence of two individuals in the classroom, and there is a great deal to understand about the practice itself. Much research exists with a focus on inclusion and co-teaching; however, a majority is centered around teacher perceptions and attitudes regarding this approach rather than classroom practice (Gurgur & Uzuner, 2010; Korkmaz, 2011; Solis et al., 2012).
In reviewing the research on perceptions, the results of this body of literature appear to be largely contradictory. There are many studies that indicate a positive perception of inclusive education held by classroom educators (Gal et al., 2010; Horne & Timmons, 2009). Still, others found a predominantly negative or neutral opinion was held by those participating (Brackenreed, 2008; de Boer et al., 2011). It has been suggested that there are so many varying opinions
because of the various levels of implementation (Solis et al., 2012).
A metasynthesis of qualitative studies indicated that most participants described co-teaching as beneficial given the right resources. The most observed co-co-teaching method was still one-teach one-assist which does not fully utilize the instructional skills of the special education teacher. General education teachers were primarily leading whole group instruction with little observable individualized instruction. In this environment, special education teachers were simply viewed as assistants (Scruggs, Mastropieri, & McDuffie, 2007).
In a meta-analysis conducted by Murawski and Swanson (2001), it was decided that there was not enough data to speculate effects of co-teaching on gender, length of study, or disability type. There was some limited data to suggest that the possibility of positive effects on
achievement could exist, but there was not enough evidence to corroborate the existence of individualized instruction in practice (Murawski & Swanson, 2001).
Many have expressed a belief that there are social benefits from educating students with disabilities in the environment with their non-disabled peers; however, there are concerns noted for the academic realm (Daane, Beirne-Smith, & Latham, 2000). There has long been discussion of possible feelings of stigmatization when students are pulled out and educated in a special education classroom. However, in a review of the literature, Scruggs and Mastropieri (1995) found no basis for this when reviewing data from student interviews. To the contrary, it was determined that students felt that the services were necessary and felt a connection to their special education teacher with no feelings of deprivation related to the general education setting that they were missing.
The variance among studies leaves many questions for consideration, as the differing factors are also quite varied. It is difficult to fully assess perceptions without understanding the resulting practice. Research relying completely on self report may not provide all necessary data. Solis et al. (2012) indicated that “Researchers have addressed the attitudes, beliefs, and
perceptions of teachers about collaborative models, with the rationale that teachers’ beliefs are likely to influence teachers’ motivation and thus their quality of practice within collaborative models” (p. 505). More research is needed in this area to clarify these issues.
Previous Studies Regarding Teacher Perception
There are many studies relying on self- report that examine the perceptions of educators in relation to the co-taught environment. In order to truly evaluate this relationship an instrument such as the proposed Co-Teaching Observation Instrument (CTOI) is necessary to bring the data on classroom practices into the equation. While this study will not include a component to address perceptions, the inclusion of the research on this subject illustrates the gap in the
literature and the need for this instrument. Hopefully, future research will utilize this instrument to investigate the relationship between perception and practice.
Demographics
It has been determined that the impact of demographic features such as age, teaching experience, and gender do not provide consistent results (Rakap & Kaczmarek, 2010). In one study, it was determined that the oldest and youngest teachers along with males possessed the most positive attitudes toward co-teaching (Rakap & Kaczmarek, 2010). Training and years of experience in special education also appeared to contribute to positive perceptions (Rakap & Kaczmarek, 2010). Other studies indicated that females held more positive opinions than their male counterparts and that less experienced teachers are also more accepting (Hwang & Evans, 2011; Parua, 2010). Forlin, Loreman, Sharma, and Earle (2009) found that while male educators began with a more negative outlook, they gained a more positive opinion following some
training. This correlational study (N = 500) also indicated that educators with higher degrees were more negative with less change noted following training, while younger teachers were more apt to show changes in perception. Another project undertaken in Ghana found no statistical significance regarding age, gender, or the length of teaching career (Gyimah, Sugden, & Pearson, 2009). There was lack of support for any one finding in the area of demographics.
Experience with Disabilities
There is consensus that educators possess different views regarding including students with different disabilities (Avramidis & Kalyva, 2007; Carter & Hughes, 2006; Idol, 2006). Teacher self-efficacy has an impact on teachers’ resulting reaction to students with disabilities in general education classrooms (Buell et al., 1999). In several studies, positive attitudes regarding the inclusion of students with disabilities were noted; however, this perception was slightly less positive with regard to certain disabilities (Avramidis & Kalyva, 2007; Carter & Hughes, 2006). These perceptions can impact students as well. Evidence is offered in statements from
researchers such as, “If teacher perceptions of students with disabilities are negative then
including such students in general education classrooms may not result in a beneficial experience for the student” (Daane et al., 2000, p. 332).
Findings in Greece indicated an existing fear of problems regarding students with neurological disorders, hearing and vision deficits, and autism spectrum disorders in the general education classroom (Avramidis & Kalyva, 2007). There seemed to be a common misconception that students with disabilities create more behavior problems than their non disabled peers; therefore, these behavior problems are another subcategory that teachers would like to see excluded (Carter & Hughes, 2006). However, in another study conducted in a large metropolitan school district in the southwestern United States, Idol (2006) indicated that the reaction from teachers due to disruptive behavior problems is the same regardless of a present disability or the lack thereof. Those experiencing behavior problems of any type and cognitive issue were less readily accepted than those with physical disabilities (Gal et al., 2010; Goodman & Burton, 2010; Rakap & Kaczmarek, 2010).
The Impact of Teacher Education Programs
Current studies indicate that educator preparation programs must take an active role in addressing teacher readiness and acceptance of students with disabilities (Diana, 2014;
Weilbacher & Tilford, 2015;). The separate educational programs for general education and special education teachers have created a gap that continues to widen (Buell et al., 1999; Daane et al., 2000; Diana, 2014; Weilbacher & Tilford, 2015). Students emerge with both greater knowledge and understanding of individuals with disabilities following courses that include more content related to co-teaching and special education topics. The integration of this content related to co-teaching leads to an increase in feelings of self-efficacy as teachers feel more prepared to teach this population of students. In turn, there is also a more positive opinion of the education of students with disabilities in the general education classroom (Brandes & Crowson, 2009: McCray & McHatton, 2011; Sosu, Mtika, & Colucci-Gray, 2010). While the training of special education teachers includes several content area classes, often the training of general education teachers does not include deep and meaningful information regarding students with disabilities. This information is covered at a surface level, and the gap created in knowledge and understanding may have an impact on the perceptions of general education teachers.
Barriers to Effective Co-Teaching
Much of the literature focused on the barriers to co-teaching from the viewpoint of both general and special educators in the classroom. The barriers are an important component to consider in any evaluation of a team teaching program. Training was a recurrent concern across studies; the consensus indicated that there is not enough initial or ongoing training in order to address the needs of students with disabilities. There is also an indication of a lack of planning time allocated to collaborate and work with team members in preparation for class (Brackenreed,
2008; Korkmaz, 2011; Ocloo & Subbey, 2008). A lack of administrative support is also cause for concern. Teachers feel that they have no input or control regarding the co-teaching process (Brackenreed, 2008; Korkmaz, 2011; Ocloo & Subbey, 2008). Adequate differentiation of activities, student behaviors, a lack of appropriate resources in the classroom, and parent
expectations are also areas of concern or uncertainty (Brackenreed, 2008; Korkmaz, 2011; Ocloo & Subbey, 2008).
Researchers cited concern regarding resources as a source of negative feelings or worries regarding successfully implementing the co-teaching framework (Carter & Hughes, 2006; Ernst & Rogers, 2009; Koutrouba, Vamvakari, & Steliou, 2006). Across research studies, concerns varied and ranged from human resources to materials to time constraints. These concerns regarding sufficient time to collaborate and plan and having enough materials and staff to work effectively were the same concerns noted ten years previously as well (Carter & Hughes, 2006). Ersnt and Rogers (2009) indicated that “teachers’ access to support materials and resource staff influenced the affective and behavioral components of their attitudes positively” (p. 318). Staff shortages and the resulting stress appear to create distrust for administration as well as the process of co-teaching, as it seems to create more work (Koutrouba et al., 2006). Ocloo and Subbey (2008) reported that 65% of respondents were concerned about not having enough of the required resources. Support from administration is vital in addressing staff concerns; it is
doubtful that without it, the required changes in order to ensure the success of this or any program will take place (Idol, 2006).
Positive Outcomes in Co-Taught Classrooms
There are very few studies that addressed the practicesof teachers in the co-taught classroom from the standpoint of observation. The available findings were based on qualitative
interviews with co-workers and administrators. One study by Ben-Yehuda, Leyser, and Last (2010) provided some insight into characteristics of effective co-teachers. This was a
phenomenological, qualitative study with 24 teachers and 782 students participating. In this research, there were some personal characteristics associated with successful co-teachers which included support for the education of students from various disability levels in the general education setting, a designated time appointed for collaboration, and more effort in making and maintaining parent contact. These educators were also more aware of student needs and
accommodated these needs in the course of instruction (Ben-Yehuda et al., 2010). The
professional relationship between teachers involved appeared to have an impact on the success of the co-taught classroom (Solis et al., 2012). When questioned, successful co-teachers believed student success was related to their own skill in teaching, while unsuccessful co-teachers often attributed failures to external factors outside of their control. Mintz (2007) reported that the attitudes of educators in his study were fluid rather than fixed. Flexibility allowed for constant growth and change as new information was acquired through training.
Co-Teaching Models
There are several accepted models for the organization of content in a co-taught classroom. Friend et al (2010) defined six which are commonly accepted. One teach, one observe and one teach, one assist lend support to the perception of the special education teacher as an aide, although it could also be the general education teacher supporting in this model. In one teach, one observe, one teacher is collecting some type of data while instruction occurs while with one teach, one assist, a teacher is moving among students offering help as the lesson is taught. This assistance can be in the form of academic, behavioral, or on task reminders. The other forms of co-teaching offer more opportunity for shared instructional roles. Station teaching
indicates that instruction has been divided into groups that may be teacher led or independent in nature and students transition to these various areas. In order to decrease the student-to-teacher ratio or offer an opportunity for differentiation, parallel teach can be employed. Parallel teach allows the teachers to divide the class and provide instruction on the same content. Small group instruction may occur through the use of alternative teaching, where one teacher leads a portion of the class in order to remediate, enrich, or assess. Finally, team teaching requires both
educators to work together in order to provide instruction to the whole group in a shared instructional role (Friend et al., 2010).
Friend et al.’s (2010) co-teaching models provide a framework for a co-taught
environment and are beneficial to practice. However, they do not offer an all-inclusive view of the characteristics necessary to ensure a successful outcome. In essence, there is more to be considered in whether co-teaching is actually taking place, as this is more about strategy than location. There are also other constructs that factor into the successful practice of co-teaching that must be examined. A review of the literature reveals that practices related to successful co-taught classrooms are embodied in six dimensions: (a) teacher collaboration/parity, (b) teacher to student interaction, (c) instructional roles, (d) instructional strategies, (e) individualized
instruction, and (f) classroom management (Angelides, Georgiou, & Kyriakou, 2008; Mastropieri et al., 2005; Ripski et al., 2011).
Teacher Classroom Practice as a Component of Perception
While all of the findings regarding teacher perceptions and concerns regarding co-teaching are important and beneficial to classroom planning, there is still a component that remains unstudied. The perceptions of teachers in the co-taught setting as well as their thoughts regarding what stands in the way of success deserve consideration. When viewing attitude from
the perception of the three component theory (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993), it becomes clear that perceptions do not exist in isolation. In order to truly understand the influence of attitudes, the cognitive, affective, and behavioral components must be considered (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993).
The previous research accounts for the cognitive and affective pieces of this body of knowledge through the process of self report. The problem is that there is no valid measure for the classroom practices of co-teachers. There could be a vast difference between perceptions recorded through self-report and observable classroom practice. There is no guarantee that the practices exhibited will be directly aligned to the perceptions reported. The difference between perception and practice could be a result of social pressure or a desire to please (de Boer et al., 2011; Rakap & Kaczmarek, 2010). The majority of literature generally focuses on teacher contentment rather than actual classroom practices (Kusuma-Powell & Powell, 2016; Welch, Brownell, & Sheridan, 1999). In order to examine the relationship between teacher perceptions regarding co-teaching and the use of these models in the classroom, there must be a valid and reliable evaluation instrument in order to observe teacher practices. It is imperative to possess this information in order to understand the impact that the implementation of co-teaching strategies and teacher practice has on the resulting academic outcomes experienced by the students in the classroom.
The Need for a Validated Instrument for Co-Teaching Observation
A review of the existing literature brought to light the need for an evaluation instrument for teacher practices in the co-taught classroom. Scruggs et al. (2007) stated, “Classroom instructional practices have not changed substantially in response to co-teaching” (p. 412). This statement reinforces what Murawski and Swanson (2001) observed: “Few studies describe the actions of the special education teacher during the process of co-teaching” (p. 265) and
additional data is needed in this area. The literature indicated that teacher perception of the co-taught classroom is a greater predictor of effective co-teaching than the knowledge of the educator as established through interviews with the educators (Pearce et al., 2009). Without the existence of this instrument, future research cannot truly evaluate the impact that teacher perceptions have on the implementation of co-teaching strategies. Until that is understood, it is difficult to understand how the implementation of co-teaching strategies correlates with the resulting measures of student achievement. There have been discrepancies between self-reported perceptions in relation to the self reported willingness of educators to teach students with
disabilities (Hwang & Evans, 2011). Many researchers include in their discussion of limitations the need for observation, the lack of reliability of self-report, and the uncertainty of whether actions match self-report (de Boer et al., 2011; Rakap & Kaczmarek, 2010; Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1996).
When Friend et al. (2010) discussed limitations and needs for further research in their writing examining the existing research in the field of co-teaching, there were several areas of concern. The need for study of rigorous programs adhering to a specific definition of co-teaching across multiple grade levels was discussed. Friend et al. (2010) stated:
It is essential that the impact on students of high-quality co-teaching implemented
consistently be determined. Teacher, students, and even parent perceptions of co-teaching outcomes are helpful in that they inform the field concerning priorities and beliefs of the implementers and recipients of co-teaching, but perceptions do not establish an evidence base. (p. 22)
It is evident that there must be a validated means of assessing teacher practices and strategy in co-taught classrooms. This information considered in relation to the academic achievement of students would offer great benefit to the field of special education.
Teacher Collaboration and Parity
Teacher collaboration is a construct that reappears in literature related to successful co-teaching for the past two decades. Collaboration, defined as time spent together with a focus on shared thoughts with time for reflection and feedback in order to utilize each educators strengths, requires that educators sharing a classroom also share planning time and responsibility for
student success (Knight, 2011). When this collaboration is effective the result is respectful interactions between educators and parity in the classroom setting (Friend et al., 2010). The relationship is established between teachers, and the result is observable in the way that they interact, conference, and respond to each other both in and out of the classroom. Educators working together in a co-teaching relationship must be compatible and communicate effectively (Friend et al., 2010).
The successful implementation of a co-taught environment requires an understanding of the definition of co-teaching as well as the individual requirements. Teachers need to be aware of and comfortable with a shift in roles and responsibilities in the classroom. There are differences between co-teaching and team teaching. Historically, team teaching occurred between
professionals sharing similar knowledge bases. In co-teaching, there are varied areas of expertise that should complement instruction. Collaboration is an integral part of co-teaching but is not synonymous with this term, as teachers may share a classroom and even some duties with no level of collaboration at all. In order to truly implement the premises of co-teaching, there must be time set aside for planning and discussion. Finally, inclusion is the process of including all
students in the classroom setting, but co-teaching should embody the manner in which they are educated (Friend et al., 2010; Isherwood & Barger-Anderson, 2008).
In order to truly foster an environment where parity between educators is observable, a great deal of planning and communication must be done before the model is implemented. Both teachers must understand their own and the other’s expectations and beliefs regarding the process. An honest discussion of roles, space, strengths and weaknesses, and shared
responsibility must take place. Any tensions or differences in philosophy must be discussed and addressed (Bouck, 2007).
There are a variety of indicators that illustrate the existence of a classroom environment that is shared by two educators. The shared classroom is strengthened by a set planning time on the weekly calendar, both teachers’ names indicated on the syllabus or in the classroom, teachers conferencing during the lesson, modeling of respect in conversation, and students approaching both teachers for guidance in academic or behavioral questions (Friend et al., 2010; Rea & Connell, 2005). A lesson plan containing visible input from both educators should be readily accessible. The adults in the classroom provide the example for acceptable behavior, and there is evidence that both participants are prepared and familiar with the content covered (Friend et al., 2010; Rea & Connell, 2005). Other observable practices in the co-taught classroom may be the participation of both teachers in creating and grading assessments, contacting parents, and correcting mistakes made by the other without incident (Angelides et al., 2008; Carter et al., 2009; Linz et al., 2008; Worrell, 2008). While some of these practices were outside of the scope of this instrument, they are worthy of noting.
